Because of many conversations where I've asked traditional evangelical conservative types, "WHERE is Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) in the teachings of Jesus?" ... and I've asked because Jesus said clearly he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized and we have many of the teachings and sermons of Jesus contained in the four Gospel books. IF Jesus was preaching PSA, where is it? And when I've asked that, I've either gotten no answer or a reference to maybe two verses where Jesus uses a phrase that COULD be taken as a reference to PSA (if you squint and hope). So, I'm just doing a pretty quick review of the entirety of the Gospel of Matthew IN SEARCH OF PSA! Here we go!
Matt 1: we have the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew's genealogy)
Matt 2:
we find the story of the powerful Jewish king, Herod, who plots to kill
baby Jesus and acts monstrously in his position of wealth and power. We
also find that Jesus and his family become political refugees, seeking
asylum and safety from a mad king. Herod behaves as powerful despots
often do: he orders the mass slaughter of babies to defend his seat of
power.
Matt 3: We are introduced to John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin. John is already getting in trouble for calling the Pharisees/Sadducees (the religious leaders) "You brood of vipers!" and worse. Later on we find that John has a heart for preaching good news to the poor and marginalized. In trying to determine if Jesus was "The One," he asked if he was preaching to the poor (Jesus was, of course). John is a wild, simple-living country preacher who preached repentance, but the main target for his rebukes was the Pharisees, the Sadducees and King Herod Antipas (the son of Jesus' King Herod, the Baby Killer)
“A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
Matt 3: We are introduced to John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin. John is already getting in trouble for calling the Pharisees/Sadducees (the religious leaders) "You brood of vipers!" and worse. Later on we find that John has a heart for preaching good news to the poor and marginalized. In trying to determine if Jesus was "The One," he asked if he was preaching to the poor (Jesus was, of course). John is a wild, simple-living country preacher who preached repentance, but the main target for his rebukes was the Pharisees, the Sadducees and King Herod Antipas (the son of Jesus' King Herod, the Baby Killer)
Matt 4:
Jesus tempted in the desert. Jesus begins preaching, citing Isaiah "for
the people living in darkness have seen a great light..." Isaiah, to
the Jews of the time and today, would be known for calling the people to
not be consumed by wealth, but to follow God by defending the poor and
marginalized. The very "worship" that Israel did was condemned as
worthless, if not being an outgrowth of defending justice for the poor
and marginalized.
Jesus begins his preaching with a call to repentance and welcome to the "kingdom of God," the realm of God, the beloved community.
"Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues,
proclaiming the good news of the kingdom,
and healing every disease and sickness among the people."
This "good news of the kingdom" is a consistent message/theme from Jesus and Jesus expounds upon it repeatedly. In Luke we see that Jesus came to preach this good news to the poor and marginalized. The realm of God is Jesus' most mentioned theme.
Jesus calls his disciples from the normal working class people of the day. People who struggled to get by.
Jesus begins his preaching with a call to repentance and welcome to the "kingdom of God," the realm of God, the beloved community.
"Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues,
proclaiming the good news of the kingdom,
and healing every disease and sickness among the people."
This "good news of the kingdom" is a consistent message/theme from Jesus and Jesus expounds upon it repeatedly. In Luke we see that Jesus came to preach this good news to the poor and marginalized. The realm of God is Jesus' most mentioned theme.
Jesus calls his disciples from the normal working class people of the day. People who struggled to get by.
Matt 5-7: Sermon on the Mount. THE single most complete passage that we'd recognize as a sermon.
Not once in this most complete sermon do we have a theme of substitutionary atonement (a theory that some Christians developed over the 1200-1400s).
We do see simple, gracious living promoted, the Light of God in a dark world.
In the context of John the Baptist's and eventually Jesus' ongoing rebukes of the religious legalists, Jesus makes clear he's not come to take away the laws, but to fulfill them, to help them be understood rightly.
We see gracious, humble ally-ship with the poor being taught (the people Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to)
We see simple living promoted and warnings of wealth.
We see Jesus telling us clearly that we can recognize the followers of God by the way they act (their "good fruit") which is made clear in many places that this includes how we ally with and for "the least of these."
Matt 8-9: Jesus heals an "unclean" leper
Jesus heals the servant of a Roman centurion (the "enemy")
We see Jesus telling us clearly that we can recognize the followers of God by the way they act (their "good fruit") which is made clear in many places that this includes how we ally with and for "the least of these."
Matt 8-9: Jesus heals an "unclean" leper
Jesus heals the servant of a Roman centurion (the "enemy")
Jesus heals many others (and a reminder that the physical and mentally ill in that time would be considered unclean and marginalized and would typically be poor and marginalized)
Jesus is rebuked by the religious for "daring" to forgive someone (again setting their legalism up and against Jesus' grace)
The religious legalists continue to snipe at Jesus for hanging out with the marginalized and unclean "sinners." (again, setting their legalism up and against Jesus' grace)
Again and again, more healing and grace and welcome from Jesus for the "sinners" and marginalized. More sniping/attacks from the legalists. Making for a clear context between the protagonist, God, and the way of Grace in opposition to the antagonists, the Legalists, and the way of deadly and exclusionary rule-following, rules that ultimately serve to further marginalize the poor and marginalized (including the women, always).
The legalists begin literally demonizing Jesus, saying he was of the Devil. Sounds familiar, yes?
Matt 10: Jesus sends out his disciples to preach and share with the Jews (specifically), telling them:
As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
and giving some simple living instructions and instructions on grace. "Freely you have received, freely give..."
Jesus warns them that the Legalists will attack and oppress them, but to go, anyway. His instructions (other than the warnings about the legalists) are always about welcome and grace and forgiveness.
Giving a cup of cold water to one of these...
A third of the way through Matthew and no mention of PSA. Many mentions of "the realm of God," service to/ally-ship with the poor and marginalized, and simple, grace-full living, of welcoming.
Matt 11: Jesus and John the Baptist stories. John confirms that Jesus is preaching to the poor and healing, his "evidence" that Jesus was of God. More preaching about the realm of God and the attacks against it (clearly a reference to the Legalists):
From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence and violent people have been raiding it....
Jesus confronts the Legalists:
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”
The "THEY" who are saying these things aren't the regular "sinners," the poor and marginalized, the sexually active or others typically demonized. It's the Legalists.
Jesus condemns some cities for their refusal to repent, but doesn't give details. But he does compare them to Sodom and Gomorrah, which the Bible says were condemned because they were arrogant and didn't care for the poor and marginalized.
In contrast to the Legalists and the burdens that weighed people down with, Jesus emphasizes the gentle, welcoming grace and love of God's way:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Matt 12-13:
Jesus continues to be rebuked by and to rebuke the Legalists. They
condemn Jesus for "breaking the law" of the Sabbath rest, but Jesus
reminds them ("fulfills the law") that the Sabbath was made for humans,
not the other way around. God is not a legalist cop seeking to punish an
endless number of people for endless transgressions. God is a welcoming
Lover, seeking to give rest and support.
More confrontations of the Legalists against Jesus and vice versa. Jesus again cites the Prophet Isaiah and his welcoming beloved community where the poor are not oppressed. MULTIPLE rebukes against the legalists.
Still no Substitutionary Atonement mentions.
Jesus' teaches in parables (explaining that the Legalists will not understand them, so long as they are legalists and not grace-followers/accepters.)
Matt 14-15: Jesus feeds the large crowd of his followers, the poor and working class who followed Jesus and listened to his teachings. Or rather, the disciples feed them, as instructed by Jesus.
Jesus walks on water. Jesus heals the sick.
Jesus confrontations with the Legalists increase and get more serious. Jesus heals more people, including the gentile Canaanite woman (triply unclean, being a woman and a gentile and an enemy of Israel!). Jesus allows her to teach him about inclusion and grace.
Jesus again cites the radical Isaiah, who condemned the legalists. Jesus feeds another large crowd of the poor and marginalized and working class who followed him.
More confrontations of the Legalists against Jesus and vice versa. Jesus again cites the Prophet Isaiah and his welcoming beloved community where the poor are not oppressed. MULTIPLE rebukes against the legalists.
Still no Substitutionary Atonement mentions.
Jesus' teaches in parables (explaining that the Legalists will not understand them, so long as they are legalists and not grace-followers/accepters.)
Matt 14-15: Jesus feeds the large crowd of his followers, the poor and working class who followed Jesus and listened to his teachings. Or rather, the disciples feed them, as instructed by Jesus.
Jesus walks on water. Jesus heals the sick.
Jesus confrontations with the Legalists increase and get more serious. Jesus heals more people, including the gentile Canaanite woman (triply unclean, being a woman and a gentile and an enemy of Israel!). Jesus allows her to teach him about inclusion and grace.
Jesus again cites the radical Isaiah, who condemned the legalists. Jesus feeds another large crowd of the poor and marginalized and working class who followed him.
Matt 16-20: More
conflicts and rebukes of the legalists, who have begun actively testing
him, looking for justification to have him killed. Jesus tells on
them/tells his disciples it won't be long. More healing.
Transfiguration.
Jesus teaches more about grace and humility and welcoming/becoming like a little child.
He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
Jesus teaches more about grace and humility and welcoming/becoming like a little child.
He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
Jesus speaks about the limitless nature of forgiveness and grace.
Jesus speaks about divorce (don't do it). Jesus tells the rich young man that for him to be saved, he'd need to give up his wealth. Jesus clarifies/emphasizes: "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven."
More parables. Parables about money/wealth and workers, which concludes: "So the last will be first, and the first will be last"
THEN, FINALLY, about 2/3 through the Gospel of Matthew, we find ONE line where Jesus utters a phrase that COULD be taken to be referring to some kind of atonement. But it was not part of one of the sermons Jesus taught (again, Jesus came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized!), but in a private conversation where the POINT being discussed was humility within the realm of God.
When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers [James/John]. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Now, IF Jesus had repeatedly, in his sermons and teachings to the poor and least of these had talked about the need for a blood payment to atone (as the ONLY way God would be able/willing to forgive people), THEN this one passage might be taken to speaking of that. But that doesn't happen. Period. But absent that, this seems, on the face of it, to be talking about why we should strive to be humble, not seek to be great. For even God in Jesus came to serve and to pour out his life in service to others. Absent any other mention of (let alone emphasis upon) atonement, I don't see this being perforce understood that way.
Matt 21-22: Jesus enters Jerusalem in the final escalation between the grace of the protagonist, Jesus and the legalism of the antagonists, the Legalists. Jesus arrives humbly upon a mule, not as a triumphant warrior king. The working class and poor who followed Jesus celebrated his arrival.
Jesus enters the temple and sees the moneychangers cheating (especially/specifically the poor) inside the temple and drives/chases them out with a handmade whip. More confrontation with the Legalists. Jesus sides with the humble children (the least of these) over and against the wishes of the powerful legalists.
More parables. Legalists plot to arrest Jesus but fear the regular people, who were his ardent followers. Some of the parables are speaking of the powerful who will abuse the humble King. When the rich and powerful won't come to the dinner, the King welcomes the poor and marginalized, in rebuke of the rich and powerful.
More confrontations and plots from the legalists. Jesus teaches the simple, "greatest commandments" - Love God, Love people.
Matt 23-25: Jesus gives the Legalists a great deal of hell. Rebukes and condemnation for them and their legalism ways.
More parables, including the Sheep and the Goats, in which Jesus makes clear that HE is the least of these. "In as much as you do it to them, you do it to me."
Matt 26-28: The Last Supper. Here, in this private conversation with the disciples, we have the SECOND of only two potential mentions of Atonement. In sharing the supper (in his typical, humble, grace-full way), Jesus says:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Once
again, IF in the sermons of "good news for the poor and marginalized"
Jesus had clearly mentioned something like atonement, THEN we might
could envision that this second sentence in a private conversation COULD
be referencing atonement as the modern religionists mean it. But we
just don't have that. Period.Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
From this point on, we have the final kangaroo court of the Legalists who are enraged at Jesus' way of grace and inclusion and failure to follow the rules that they thought were important. Then Jesus Roman trial and capitol punishment torture/execution by more people in power (although, in his defense, the cowardly Roman governor, Pilate, at least had the sense to say "I don't see he's done anything wrong..." and yet, he still had him executed) .
In summation, we don't have ONE single sermon where ANYTHING like the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory (theorized by humans hundreds of years after Jesus' death and resurrection) in the canon of Jesus' teachings to the poor and marginalized as found in Matthew.
IF we assume that Jesus (who, once again, literally said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized) would have, at some point in at least ONE set of his teachings, seen fit to at least give a passing mention to something like atonement as theorized by some, it would be there in his words in his sermons/teachings. It's literally not.
What we do see is a gospel (good news to the poor and marginalized, remember) full of words of welcome, grace, forgiveness, acceptance and love to all, beginning with the poor and marginalized AND we see a gospel full of warnings and rebukes to the legalists, the rich and powerful. The legalists, the rich and powerful are literally the antagonists in the Gospels of Jesus - the warning to NOT be like THAT.
And while the "regular people," the poor, marginalized and working class are called to repentance and to join the Realm of God, the Beloved Community of Grace, they are never rebuked exceedingly harshly. The warnings of hell and condemnation are nearly exclusively (exclusively?) for the rich, powerful legalists.
fyi.
32 comments:
Mark 10:45=Christ preaching PSA.
1. The verse you cite in Mark is included in Matthew and I note it.
2. It's in a private conversation, not in a sermon to "the people."
3. Jesus says in many places in his ministry that he'd come to preach the good news or the good news of the realm of God to the people, or to the poor and marginalized.
4. There are NO instances of Jesus preaching the human theory of atonement to the people at large.
5. It's questionable that this is atonement in Mark 10 (I think clearly not) but it's not part of a sermon.
If you'd like to comment here, Marshal, and you'd like to disagree with me, all you have to do is cite the place in Matthew (or any gospel) where Jesus preached the theory of atonement as you all understand it in ANY of his sermons. EVEN ONE TIME. If you can't do that (and you can't), then have the grace to admit that it's simply not there in his sermons.
"2. It's in a private conversation, not in a sermon to "the people.""
Ah...moving the goalposts again as you've insisted Scripture doesn't teach PSA. Now, you're saying because Christ said it in private, though this private conversation is recorded for all to see, it's still somehow not good enough to be considered a teaching of Scripture. You're pathetic. Stop pretending you're a Christian.
"3. Jesus says in many places in his ministry that he'd come to preach the good news or the good news of the realm of God to the people, or to the poor and marginalized."
Why do you insist on putting words in His mouth? There's no mention of "the marginalized". Keep your marxist nonsense to yourself when speaking of what Jesus said. Your paraphrase is self-serving and misleading.
https://carm.org/about-jesus/what-did-jesus-come-to-do/
https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritual-life/did-jesus-have-a-bucket-list-15-things-jesus-came-to-do.html
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-studies/christmas-accounts/jesus-came-to-earth-for-seven-reasons/
https://www.kevinhalloran.net/christmas-bible-verses/
"4. There are NO instances of Jesus preaching the human theory of atonement to the people at large."
As in Mark 10, the story is also told in Matt 20. You want to pretend that because Christ is only preaching to His Apostles that it doesn't count as Christ preaching PSA. A weaker attempt I cannot imagine, but you think you're scoring points.
"5. It's questionable that this is atonement in Mark 10 (I think clearly not) but it's not part of a sermon."
It's only questionable to fakes like you...not to actual Christians. To actual Christians it's Christianity 101.
"If you'd like to comment here, Marshal, and you'd like to disagree with me, all you have to do is cite the place in Matthew (or any gospel) where Jesus preached the theory of atonement as you all understand it in ANY of his sermons."
You'd have benefited by leading with this laughable attempt to pretend PSA wasn't preached by Christ (and then later affirmed by His Apostles in their Epistles).
I never insisted that it was in any particular sermon, but only that He taught it...which He did. And again, that "Behold! The Lamb of God" thing also affirms the Truth of it. But the fact that you now insist it must appear emphatically in a sermon to more than just the Apostles or His disciples just shows how false you are, that you won't attest to a truth in Scripture to which scholars have attached the identifier "Penal Substitutionary Atonement". It's Christianity 101, whether you're Christian enough to accept it or not....which you're clearly not, given you're not really a Christian.
Marshal...
Why do you insist on putting words in His mouth? There's no mention of "the marginalized".
1. Marshal, I'm reminding you to strive to be more respectful and less combative. I've asked you politely, please do so.
2. As a point of reality in the real world in the real Bible, there are endless times where the poor and marginalized are referred to. Not the word, "marginalized," but people who ARE marginalized. These include the:
poor
enslaved
oppressed
foreigners/immigrants/refugees
imprisoned
sick
mentally ill (or, if you prefer, "the demon-possessed")
menstruating women
women
widows
orphans
children
blind
deaf
"unclean"
enemy
those with leprosy
lonely
abandoned
beggars
destitute
...for a starter list.
3. As a point of reality, EACH of these "types" are indeed marginalized in the world. Factually, objectively speaking. Oftentimes in that day and age (with the legalists, anyway) they were literally marginalized - pushed away. The mentally ill roaming the cemeteries, for instance. The "unclean," due to leprosy or "that time of the month," who had to literally distance themselves, keep themselves at the margins of society, even being forced to call out "unclean" if someone approached! Slaves were, of course, marginalized, as were the oppressed, imprisoned and, well, that WHOLE list.
4. Now, you may DISAGREE with the choice of the term "marginalized" to refer to this group of people, but that is the term I am using (reasonably so, as I've just demonstrated) and so, you can't say that what I'm referring to as the marginalized are not in the Bible.
5. That is, when Jesus said he'd come to preach the good news to the poor, the imprisoned, the blind, etc, THAT is what I'm referring to as marginalized. That, instead of writing out the whole list. I could just as easily refer to "Jesus came to preach the good news to A," where A = that list, but that's less understandable. Marginalized IS understandable and you should be able to wrap your head around what I'm saying. When I say Jesus literally said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized, I'm referring to blind, imprisoned, oppressed and poor, what Jesus literally said.
Now, from henceforth into all of history from here on out, you need not falsely claim that I'm "lying" or "making something up" when I refer to marginalized. I've explained it and you can disagree with the choice of the word, but you can't say it's a lie.
6. "Putting words into his mouth..." so, are you suggesting it's WRONG to use a term NOT in the Bible to suggest something you find in the Bible? Are you saying that since Jesus never condemned gay folk getting married or supported PSA or an "inerrant Bible," or the Trinity, that those who make those claims/use those words are putting words into the mouth of Jesus? No. You're not. You recognize that of course it is a reasonable literary device to use a phrase to summarize or refer to a teaching in the Bible. You spout that endlessly when I criticize your opinions about PSA and other human traditions.
Now you know better. Be respectful.
I don't think you or Craig are grasping the point I'm making. JESUS SAID he had come to preach "good news" to the poor and marginalized, that he'd come to preach "good news of the realm of God" (sigh, and REALM is just another word for kingdom before you complain and miss the point) to the people.
At the same time, you two believe that "the gospel" = something like Penal Substitutionary Atonement (a term not in the Bible, of course).
What I'm asking then is the reasonable question: WHERE?
Where in Jesus literal teachings to the people, in his sermons and preaching that we have recorded, did he preach PSA to the people at large?
It's literally not in his sermons to the people we have recorded in the Bible.
Now, Craig appears to be taking the rather unusual tack of saying something like, "Well, he DID preach it, but not in words that we can see... it was a secret code... a hidden message that only THE ELECT can see." (He's welcome to correct my version of what he's saying.)
So, Craig's apparently willing to concede that there is NO mention of/let alone EMPHASIS UPON PSA in Jesus' sermons, but that's because it was hidden. The question then is, HOW does one pass on a message to the poor and marginalized IF IT'S HIDDEN?
So, your task, if you'd like to comment here further, is to provide the place in Jesus' sermons - ANY of them, EVEN ONE of them - where Jesus preaches/teaches PSA.
AND, if you can't, then admit that it isn't there. Or be like Craig and admit that it's not there in any obvious way, because it's HIDDEN accept to a few.
What a strange bit of good news.
Marshal believes he finds atonement in Mark 10, but in his ideological needs he loses Christian life. He gleefully waves a doctrine but blinds himself to following Jesus: not to be served but to serve others.
So Jesus called them to him and said to them, 'You know that among the gentiles those they call their rulers lord it over them, and their great men make their authority felt. Among you this is not to happen. No; anyone who wants to become great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be slave to all.
For the Son of man himself came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.'
If doctrine does not aid in helping shape us as better christians in the world, then it’s not doctrine. It’s dead dogma.
Marshal only has an ideology he believes in. He does not life a Christian life.
"1. Marshal, I'm reminding you to strive to be more respectful and less combative. I've asked you politely, please do so."
Respect is earned. You get what you've earned. While you demand I be respectful, you show me all manner of disrespect with constant accusations about my character (racist, misogynist, homophobe...as if opposing sinful behavior is a sign of flawed character). Your demand that I be respectful is arbitrary and fluid depending on how easily I've exposed your errors.
At what point is it possible to criticize without being combative? Criticism of any kind constitutes a level of combative behavior.
"2. As a point of reality in the real world in the real Bible, there are endless times where the poor and marginalized are referred to. Not the word, "marginalized," but people who ARE marginalized."j
The point is, why use a word Christ never did and put it in His mouth as if His own words as presented in Scripture aren't sufficient? It's due to an agenda, not a true desire to speak truthfully about Christ. It's unnecessary. And again, you abuse His words to serve your marxist agenda.
It's also important to remember that among your list are those who GOD referred to as unclean and to avoid contact with them was mandated lest one also become unclean and bound by God's command to purify.
And given your objection to the use of a term applied to a Biblical concept simply because the term itself is not found in Scripture, it's hypocritical to then use a word of your choosing to apply to this group of people.
3. See my response to point #2. It's also important to remember that lawbreakers...sinners...were imprisoned. Again, it's unnecessary to put words in Christ's mouth He didn't actually use. His actual words are enough for actual Christians.
4. In the same way, you can't say that PSA is inappropriate as the teaching is clear.
"Now, from henceforth into all of history from here on out, you need not falsely claim that I'm "lying" or "making something up" when I refer to marginalized."
Again, it's entirely unnecessary, and worse, you've done by using quotation marks as if quoting Christ. Either way, unnecessary and still requires proof He was speaking of earthly material things rather than wholly spiritual things when making that statement. You continue to ignore the evidence and scholarship which explains why it's the latter because of your marxist bent.
"I've explained it and you can disagree with the choice of the word, but you can't say it's a lie."
Yes I can, since He didn't say the word. If you can't rely on the actual words He is said to use, you've got a problem.
"6. "Putting words into his mouth..." so, are you suggesting it's WRONG to use a term NOT in the Bible to suggest something you find in the Bible?"
I'm saying...not "suggesting"...it's wrong to say "Jesus said..." and then use words Scripture never presented Him as having said. It's false. That's wholly different than using a contemporary term to describe a clear teaching of Scripture. None of have ever said, "Jesus said, 'I come to provide penal substitutionary atonement!'", have we? We simply assert the truth that Scripture teaches what has come to be known as PSA. Big difference. A very OBVIOUS difference!
Now you know better. Be respectful.
"Where in Jesus literal teachings to the people, in his sermons and preaching that we have recorded, did he preach PSA to the people at large?"
Why do you reject the truth simply because it does not appear in Scripture in this exact manner you suggest it must? It's not enough for you He is recorded as having taught it to His Apostles in Mark 10:45 and it's parallel in Matthew? It's not enough He stated this purpose to the Pharisees in John 10? It's absurd to suggest He had to say to large crowds in order for you to accept that He spoke of this purpose of His. Even your favorite Luke 4:16–21 speaks to this purpose and mission.
Your demand that it must be found in some sermon to a large crowd as opposed to merely a sermon to a few is absurd as is your insistence there is no such concept in Scripture at all.
Stupidly false claims you should not repeat:
1. Dan is a marxist. I'm literally not. Words have meanings. I do not ascribe to Marxism as it is defined. Period. ANY time you refer to any Democrat/liberal (or "rino") as a Marxist on here without supporting that they have agreed that they do, indeed, subscribe to the tenets of Marxism will be deleted. It's a childishly, stupidly false claim. It's disrespectful and part of the problem with modern MAGA types.
2. That you personally don't agree with the use of "and marginalized" as a way to summarize Jesus teachings is meaningless. I don't care if you don't find it "necessary." I find it exceedingly instructive AND YOU know precisely what I mean by it. ANY comments where you say that's "false" will be deleted. If you want to say that, "I, Marshal, find it unnecessary, but I know precisely what you mean because you have explained it to me..." You may say that, but you can't call it false. As long as one is being clear what one means (as I have), there is no lie, there is no harm, there is no rational reason to disagree with its use (even if you personally find it less than helpful). And don't bother going the the limp "but, but Marxism..." blather. You're done on both of those issues.
3. I find "marginalized" useful precisely because I think it's an exceedingly apt description of a great part of the Bible and of Jesus' teachings. It's not like God randomly picked out this trait and that and said, "You know what, I don't like it when people with the trait of 'being poor," are abused or oppressed. I side with them. Also, those with the trait of being an orphan..." as if they were random traits whimsically picked out by a trickster god. They have commonality.
The poor, the oppressed, the blind, the women, the widows, the children, foreigners/immigrants, the sick, the imprisoned... ESPECIALLY in that day and time (although it hasn't changed much) ALL have in common that they were marginalized, that they were either abused/oppressed/molested/overlooked OR at risk of being abused/oppressed/molested/overlooked. It's THAT trait of being marginalized and overlooked or harmed that we find God, as described in the Bible, as being consistently opposed to. THAT marginalization and risk of harm is precisely the point, as found in the Bible.
While I'm sure you're likely to disagree and think it WAS just the capricious whim of an inscrutable god, but to reasonable people throughout history reading the Bible, it's abundantly clear.
So, while YOU PERSONALLY may find it "unnecessary," I find it apt and this is my blog. We know from this day forward that you personally find it unnecessary, and it's been duly noted. And I've made clear that I'm referring to precisely what Jesus is saying, if not the exact words. No need to discuss that topic further. Don't bother.
1. I'm not about to get into get into disputing your objection here. It's off topic. Nor will I deal with your self-serving criteria for indicating marxism. Again, it's off topic, though worthy of discussion at another time.
2. Once again, anytime you quote Jesus as saying what Scripture never quoted Him as having said, you're lying. It's an intentional claim of a truth which does not exist anywhere in Scripture. If you're not going to at least honestly, specifically and distinctly present it as a paraphrase, then you're lying. Don't double down by lying about it not being a lie. Demonstrate at least the appearance of reverence by not putting words in His mouth there is no evidence of Him having expressed. You're not a Biblical scholar expert enough to provide your own translations.
3. It's meaningless except to satisfy your own goofy perspective. But if you're going to say "Jesus said...", you're perverting Scripture to also satisfy your goofy perspective, not truly relate Scripture. The point you reject, dismiss and ignore is that you are being heretical for taking liberties with what "Jesus said..." by doing this. If you want to quote Him as some common Biblical translation does, and then go on to suggest some meaning you can support with evidence, then the use of the word is not as problematic.
And again, the worst part is how easily you take these liberties, doing so with the weakest of explanation, then reject the use of labels coined by Biblical scholars to describe a clear teaching of Scripture (PSA) you pretend isn't Biblical. It's inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worst.
So, do you get the clear distinction between quoting Jesus versus paraphrasing and how the latter should be presented so that what you present isn't a blatant lie? Anytime I quote Jesus, any other figure from Scripture or Scripture in general, it's then I use quotation marks, and present chapter and verse to support it. It demonstrates respect and reverence for the Word to be clear about what I'm doing, rather than taking liberties which risk heresy. Explaining this is corrective and thus "respectful" as a result. Take it in the spirit it's been given, rather than getting all defensive.
do you get the clear distinction between quoting Jesus versus paraphrasing and how the latter should be presented so that what you present isn't a blatant lie? Anytime I quote Jesus, any other figure from Scripture or Scripture in general, it's then I use quotation marks
That you personally prefer in your own head to handle your citations that way doesn't make it the only way to do it, especially in casual conversations such as these. IF I were writing a book or a scholarly paper, I'd begin by quoting the exact words, then explaining why I'm going to paraphrase it as "Poor and marginalized," much the way I've done with you. In a more scholarly paper, I would not likely use quote marks, but this is casual conversation. So, Marshal, if it hurts your feelings or makes you really really unhappy that I might use quote marks when referring to the words of Jesus and paraphrasing it in this context, well, you're just going to have to get over it.
Besides that, at least in this conversation, I haven't used quotation marks when I say that Jesus came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized.
Now, move on.
The reality is, the Bible, A to Z, Alpha to Omega, Genesis to Revelation, refers to God's great concern for people who were/are marginalized - the poor, the oppressed, the enslaved, orphans, widows, etc. As a simple point of objectively demonstrable fact.
Reasonable people can conclude that this constant theme (probably THE most common theme in the Bible, depending on how one is counting) demonstrates that the God who came, in his words, to preach the good news to the poor and marginalized - those who have been harmed or at risk of being harmed and oppressed and, well, marginalized, by being part of those groups - was concerned about specifically the marginalized.
But here's something helpful you can do: Explain why you think in your head in your personal opinion why nearly ever biblical author cites God's concern specifically for the poor and marginalized, in some form or the other? WHY did Jesus come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized (and you know what I mean)? WHY with the sheep and the goats was the determining factor of whether they were of God was whether the sided with the poor and marginalized (you know what I mean)? WHY did James warn so HARSHLY against the rich oppressors? WHY did Jesus say it was so hard specifically for the rich to be saved?
WHY the constant theme of concern for the least of these, the poor and marginalized, the immigrants and refugees, etc?
Is it the case that you DON'T think God has made it clear that God is concerned about the poor and marginalized in biblical texts?
Here's another question to answer, Marshal:
Throughout the Bible, we find God expressing special concern for a range of people/groups of people, as classes or groupings of people:
The poor
the oppressed
widows
orphans
foreigners/immigrants/refugees
children
Israel
Israel, in being oppressed by bad actors
the poor and widows being oppressed by Israel's leaders
the "children of God"
the ones in need
The enslaved
Israel, when it was enslaved
the sick
the blind
mistreated workers
unpaid workers
the "unclean"
lepers
and other marginalized and oppressed or at-risk of being oppressed
Simply observably factually, this is true. Anyone can open the Bible and look in almost every book of the Bible and find instances of these kinds of concerns being raised by God specifically for these actually marginalized and at-risk groups, as well as Israel and "the church" or the body of Christ, but almost always (always?) in instances of being oppressed.
Conversely, we see huge numbers of warnings against the rich, the oppressors, the rich oppressors, nations who fail to take care of the poor and marginalized, etc.
My question to you:
Can you identify ANY instances - even ONE - where God/Jesus expressed a specific concern for the rich, the well-off, the average folks?
I don't think you can, but you tell me.
If ALL the dozens and dozens (hundreds?) instances of God expressing specific concern for people are for these marginalized and at-risk groups, why do you think this is? Just a coincidence OR do you think God has a special concern for the poor and marginalized?
"The reality is, the Bible, A to Z, Alpha to Omega, Genesis to Revelation, refers to God's great concern for..."
...healing the rift between He and mankind, providing the means by which one can be saved and brought into His Holy Presence. Reasonable people have concluded that this is indeed the constant theme (THE most common theme in the Bible) and demonstrates that the God who came, in his words, to preach the good news was concerned about specifically that none should perish but instead live eternally with Him. He was concerned about the poor in spirit, those blind to the Truth, those enslaved to their sin natures.
https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/does-jesus-love-the-rich
https://mbird.com/theology/what-the-gospel-means-for-rich-people/
https://www.rforh.com/blog/2022/02/25/wealthy-christians-is-that-biblical
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/jesus-loves-rich-people/
As is usual, you miss the point which should be so glaringly obvious to anyone who dares insist they've spent the time you claim to have spent in serious and prayerful study of Scripture. What you regard as "concern for the poor" is concern for those who've shown little concern for the poor. A Christian has compassion for all people INCLUDING the poor but not by excluding the wealthy. As one of the links above (none of which you've likely read seriously) Jesus showed concern for a marginalized guy who was loaded. He showed concern for more than one who was loaded. But you want to believe admonitions to the haves were not also for the have not to abide as well...that there was some distinction in how Christ treated them on the basis of their wallets. That wasn't the case and we're clearly instructed not to play favorites.
So, your question is thus answered in the links above, and that you didn't think it possible belies your claim to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture throughout your life. How could you miss this instances of God the Father or Son showing concern for wealthy people? Special concern for the poor and "marginalized"? Not as you so desperately need to pretend.
Feodor, I see that it looks like you've tried to comment and that it hasn't come through. Not sure why. I'll try to look into it when I get a chance.
Dan
Marshal:
What you regard as "concern for the poor" is concern for those who've shown little concern for the poor. A Christian has compassion for all people INCLUDING the poor but not by excluding the wealthy.
Last chance: I've said nothing about "excluding the wealthy." I've not said that God doesn't love the rich. Don't talk about what I haven't said. Deal with what I am saying and politely asking you about.
I'm also not talking about one specific person: Yes, Jesus was sad and concerned for the rich young man who walked away. Yes, God was concerned about Abraham, even in his wealth and Job.
What I noted was the reality that Genesis to Revelation, the Bible is constant and full of God showing concern for the group of the poor and marginalized (and you know what I mean). Can you find any places in the Bible where God is showing specific concern for the average successful fella? For nations that are generally doing okay?
OR can you agree that ALL of God's concern in the Bible, when it's mentioned specifically, is for the poor and marginalized... or at least that group is the primary concern? That is, yes, God is citing as loving the world, for instance, but the only specific groups that God is cited as being especially and specifically concerned for are the poor and marginalized, right?
None of your links, which I've read, answer my questions or deal with what I've noted.
No one is saying God doesn't love the rich.
No one is saying that the rich can't be saved.
No one is saying that there aren't examples of rich folks who were followers of God.
That is ALL your sources are saying and none of that is being disputed by me.
So, if you'd like to answer the questions you're actually being asked, feel free to.
"Can you find any places in the Bible where God is showing specific concern for the average successful fella?"
Yes. It's as I've said many times now. Where you prefer to think God is showing specific concern for "the poor and marginalized", I'm saying He's actually showing concern for those to whom He's speaking. By their lack of concern, those to whom He's speaking are at risk and must repent. And also, again, Christ deals with people as individuals and thus to preach about caring for the poor is as much (if not more) a concern for those He expects should show compassion than for the poor themselves. Otherwise, He could have done more for the poor...such as make their richer.
Christ's preaching to the masses was not just a horde of poor people. They were sinners for all walks of life, so clearly every sermon to a great crowd included average successful fellas. It's absurd to pretend otherwise simply because Scripture doesn't spell in out in specific terms to satisfy Dan Trabue.
"OR can you agree that ALL of God's concern in the Bible, when it's mentioned specifically, is for the poor and marginalized... or at least that group is the primary concern?"
Clearly I don't agree because I don't read Scripture to validate any leftist social justice preconceived notions. I read it to understand Truth. You should try that sometime.
"That is, yes, God is citing as loving the world, for instance, but the only specific groups that God is cited as being especially and specifically concerned for are the poor and marginalized, right?"
No. You're perverting the mention of "the poor and marginalizing" to massage your leftist bent.
"None of your links, which I've read, answer my questions or deal with what I've noted."
Read them again as if you're an honest person seeking truth.
"No one is saying God doesn't love the rich."
You're saying God is more concerned with one group of people than He is for any other. God is concerned with mankind. Period.
"No one is saying that the rich can't be saved."
You're saying the rich are less likely simply because they've got a few bucks. The assholes I've met in life were not rich dudes.
"No one is saying that there aren't examples of rich folks who were followers of God."
You crap on them as a group as if they are, in the meantime implying all "the poor and marginalized" are sweethearts.
"That is ALL your sources are saying and none of that is being disputed by me."
Those sources dispute your notion that God has greater or special concern for "the poor and marginalized".
"So, if you'd like to answer the questions you're actually being asked, feel free to."
I did. You do as you always do and reject them when you can't man up and concede your error.
Marshal...
Where you prefer to think God is showing specific concern for "the poor and marginalized", I'm saying He's actually showing concern for those to whom He's speaking. By their lack of concern, those to whom He's speaking are at risk and must repent.
Interesting. So, when the poor and marginalized call out for God's help and God (or Jesus or the prophets) respond by warning the rich and powerful oppressors, God is first and foremost concerned about the rich and powerful oppressors... is THAT what you're saying?
I mean, sure, when God gets angry at the oppressors of the poor and marginalized and gives them a chance to repent and change their ways, God IS being merciful... but isn't precisely because God is FIRST concerned that the poor and marginalized are being oppressed and harmed?
We can, of course, make the case that when God is pissed off at the oppressors, God still loves them and wants them to change and CEASE their oppression of the poor and oppressed, but the concern BEGINS with the poor and oppressed, right? Because THEY are the ones being impoverished and oppressed, right?
They were sinners for all walks of life, so clearly every sermon to a great crowd included average successful fellas.
Of course. BUT, WHICH average successful fellas (as a class) did God specifically say God was on the side of? Again, throughout the Scriptures, we see the poor and oppressed being specifically singled out as objects of God's concern, specifically... where God is acting on behalf of by angrily denouncing the rich and powerful oppressors and warning them to change. My question to you is can you recognize that the average well-off are never once singled out as a group in the bible as a group that God is watching out for, specifically?
It's just a question to see if you can agree with the reality of what is and isn't in the Bible on this point.
And also, again, Christ deals with people as individuals and thus to preach about caring for the poor is as much (if not more) a concern for those He expects should show compassion than for the poor themselves.
Damn. That's some ass-backwards thinking and abuse of biblical text, son.
You're saying God is more concerned with one group of people than He is for any other. God is concerned with mankind. Period.
I'm saying that IN THE BIBLE, the ACTUAL LITERAL TEXT has dozens/hundreds of instances of God expressing concern specifically for the poor and marginalized as a group and that there are NO corresponding verses saying, "But for you who are doing okay and are generally well-off, I'm on your side and watching out for you..."
Do you recognize that reality?
You're saying the rich are less likely simply because they've got a few bucks. The assholes I've met in life were not rich dudes.
Jesus said it, not me. Literally. "IT IS HARD FOR THE RICH TO ENTER THE REALM OF GOD." Jesus never said, "It is hard for the poor to enter the realm of God." And James said, literally, "Is it not the RICH who are oppressing you." He didn't say "the rich and others, including the poor and 'middle class' (wasn't really a middle class back then, but...)"
I'm asking if you recognize that these texts say what they literally say and DON'T say what you seem to think?
Now, answer the questions put to you. Or move on.
Just to add clarification:
You're saying God is more concerned with one group of people than He is for any other. God is concerned with mankind. Period.
I'm not. I'm literally saying that IN THE BIBLE, the only groups of people (at least in general) identified as of special concern for God are the poor and marginalized. There are ZERO passages saying, "and for you in the middle class, God is specifically looking out for you and any who make your easy life maybe a slight bit more complicated... they'll face My WRATH." Just noting that reality of what is objectively in the Bible.
I don't disagree with the notion that the God who created humanity loves all of humanity, even the oppressors, just that God never steps up in defense of the oppressor or the average well off. Not once, not in the biblical text.
Do you recognize that reality?
"No one is saying that the rich can't be saved."
You're saying the rich are less likely simply because they've got a few bucks. The assholes I've met in life were not rich dudes.
Again, I'm just citing what Jesus says in the Bible. "It's hard for the rich to be saved." Period. And noting that Jesus never once said "it's hard for the poor to be saved." Which is not to say that the poor or middle class can't also be "assholes," as you put it. Again, I'm JUST talking about the text of what is and isn't in the Bible, literally.
"No one is saying that there aren't examples of rich folks who were followers of God."
You crap on them as a group as if they are, in the meantime implying all "the poor and marginalized" are sweethearts.
Literally not. I'm literally just noting the reality that the poor and marginalized are repeatedly identified as a concern for God, while the oppressor and rich (or even "middle class" literally are not, not in the Bible). That's all. I'm JUST talking about what literally is and isn't in the text of the Bible.
Not sure why that's confusing to you or why you read a bunch of other stuff into what I've said that I have not said, nor that I believe.
"So, when the poor and marginalized call out for God's help and God (or Jesus or the prophets) respond by warning the rich and powerful oppressors, God is first and foremost concerned about the rich and powerful oppressors... is THAT what you're saying?"
So when you choose to cherry pick specific passages where the down trodden are calling out to God, that to you means you've made your case about God's concerns? That's a stretch.
"I mean, sure, when God gets angry at the oppressors of the poor and marginalized and gives them a chance to repent and change their ways, God IS being merciful... but isn't precisely because God is FIRST concerned that the poor and marginalized are being oppressed and harmed?"
Again, if you're finding specific cases where this is happening, then you can only speak to that case where God is concerned for the oppressed. That's doesn't mean God's overall concern is for oppressed people, for like the poor, we'll always have them. God's concern is for the sinfulness of mankind which includes members of the poor and marginalized, because they ain't angels, either.
And then there's the actual purpose or lesson of these passages. Is it to present God as concerned with the down trodden, or is it to illustrate God's nature? Is it possible that while He may be concerned for the suffering of some, He is at the same time concerned about the sinfulness which causes it? Both are oppressed...the down trodden by the oppressor and the oppressor by the sinfulness which provokes the oppressive behavior.
Or it's a simple matter of favoritism, which God insists we not indulge. Surely, those in power will be dismissive and threatening to those not in power. But as my links describe, those out of power are prone to marginalizing those in power as you do in your constant demonizing of the wealthy.
"Of course. BUT, WHICH average successful fellas (as a class) did God specifically say God was on the side of?"
What makes you think that's necessary that He must be as divisive as you are? The only favoritism God shows is for those who are devoted to Him and His commands. Economics has nothing to do with it as one who is poor and down trodden isn't special or favored due to his financial state, but due to his spiritual state.
"My question to you is can you recognize that the average well-off are never once singled out as a group in the bible as a group that God is watching out for, specifically?"
Sure, but there's no significance to that. It's merely you being you. It doesn't mean He isn't "watching out" for them as well. Of course He is. Are they not His, too?
"It's just a question to see if you can agree with the reality of what is and isn't in the Bible on this point."
No. It's just another question to see if I agree with you about what you want the reality of Scripture to be. Heck, it's not even a point Scripture is making as much as it's a point YOU want to make about Scripture.
"Damn. That's some ass-backwards thinking and abuse of biblical text, son."
Ah...there's that gracelessness embracing condescension again. By your rejection of the truth I suggest, one must presume God/Christ doesn't give a flying rat's patoot for the spiritual well being of those He encourages folks to show compassion to the poor. No good will come to those who do, because he only cares about the poor. Is that what you're suggesting? It's impossible to take it any other way when you dare presume negatively about my position based on Biblical truth.
"I'm saying that IN THE BIBLE, the ACTUAL LITERAL TEXT has dozens/hundreds of instances of God expressing concern specifically for the poor and marginalized as a group and that there are NO corresponding verses saying, "But for you who are doing okay and are generally well-off, I'm on your side and watching out for you...""
This essay explains it very well:
"The Church’s “preferential option for the poor” isn’t about God loving this individual person over that one. No, the option for the poor is about providing a counterweight to the inordinate prestige and privilege our fallen world confers on the wealthy and powerful. It is a call to justice, which in the biblical tradition implies the restoration of balance and equity in the relationships between individuals and among social classes."
As such, what you imply is favoritism by God, is not. Indeed, that concern doesn't outweigh concern for the yang to that yin. It just highlights the lack of balance between the two.
This one also brings clarity you lack:
"And who is more afflicted, more sick, and more lost than a worldly person obsessed with wealth?"
So as is so common for you, you misunderstand despite your "serious and prayerful" study what Scripture is actually saying. You judge lessons by how often it an issue is mentioned...merely referenced, actually...which distorts where your focus should be as an actual Christian. It also distorts your perception of the rich AND the poor as a result.
"Jesus said it, not me. Literally. "IT IS HARD FOR THE RICH TO ENTER THE REALM OF GOD.""
And in so doing, He's showing concern for the wealthy as a group. Indeed, in most ever passage wherein concern for the poor is clear, there is also concern for those who should be showing that concern themselves...as a group.
"And James said, literally, "Is it not the RICH who are oppressing you.""
These passages are not speaking of the "rich", but of the rich "who are oppressing you". There's a difference and citing these types of verses corrupts the true understanding of Christ's teachings about wealth and poverty.
"I'm asking if you recognize that these texts say what they literally say and DON'T say what you seem to think?"
What they literally say...as in the specific words used in the specific arrangement on the page...versus what they literally teach isn't the same. You reject the latter in favor of what you can do with the former.
"Now, answer the questions put to you."
I always do. Always.
"I'm literally saying that IN THE BIBLE, the only groups of people (at least in general) identified as of special concern for God are the poor and marginalized."
But it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It's a moot point with no real value of a degree you insist on giving it.
"I don't disagree with the notion that the God who created humanity loves all of humanity, even the oppressors, just that God never steps up in defense of the oppressor or the average well off. Not once, not in the biblical text.
Do you recognize that reality?"
No, because it's a double-edged sword. And among the oppressed are certainly tons of sinners of a different kind. And what is important is that more significant than the distinction between rich oppressor and poor oppressed is the distinction between sinner and saint. Or disobedient and obedient. This is where God's true focus is (and Christ's, for that matter). Your constant harping on how often the poor are mentioned doesn't mitigate that more important grouping. But it does provide you liberties you shouldn't be taking.
"Again, I'm just citing what Jesus says in the Bible. "It's hard for the rich to be saved." Period. And noting that Jesus never once said "it's hard for the poor to be saved.""
That was case specific and didn't in any way suggest that it's easy for "the poor" to be saved. We each have our issues and money isn't the only object of worship for mankind. The poor are fixated on money often to a far greater extent than are those who already have it. The poor have temptations of all kinds just as do the well off. When Jesus spoke of the narrow path, He wasn't speaking about those taking or not in terms of their financial holdings, but simply that all are tempted to sin and few will take the narrow path.
"Not sure why that's confusing to you or why you read a bunch of other stuff into what I've said that I have not said, nor that I believe."
It goes back to your insistence that "the poor" to whom Christ came to bring the Good News was the materially poor, and from there you've been trying to back that up with all the references to the oppressed. So unless you intend to ignore all I've presented here, your position is weakened all the more by a more objective and honest understanding of who is receiving God's concern.
“It goes back to your insistence that "the poor" to whom Christ came to bring the Good News was the materially poor…”
Marshal can’t read the gospels. They offend his ideology.
‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing…”
"The Church’s “preferential option for the poor” isn’t about God loving this individual person over that one. No, the option for the poor is about providing a counterweight to the inordinate prestige and privilege our fallen world confers on the wealthy and powerful. It is a call to justice, which in the biblical tradition implies the restoration of balance and equity in the relationships between individuals and among social classes."
1. I applaud you for reading the more progress Patheos.com. I encourage you to read it more.
2. This is PRECISELY (or at least mostly) what I've been saying, Marshal. I've not said (read it again and understand it - I have NOT SAID) that God loves this person over another person.
Do you understand that reality? That I've literally NOT said that? Anywhere?
the option for the poor is about providing a counterweight to the inordinate prestige and privilege our fallen world confers on the wealthy and powerful.
3. Indeed, while the Bible does not clarify overtly WHY God literally and repeatedly (2000+ times in the Bible) came to the specific aid of the specific poor and marginalized against the rich oppressors, I think that this is a reasonable and responsible conclusion to reach given the overwhelming biblical text on the topic: The rich and powerful DO have an inordinate advantage and privilege over and against the poor and marginalized. Observably, factually, in the real world, this is demonstrable. Of course.
AND the poor and marginalized are likewise disproportionately disadvantaged and at risk of abuse and mistreatment by the rich and powerful AND the policies and social customs they put in place.
4. So, Patheos and I agree that there is, in the Biblical witness, a clear and inescapable preferential "option for the poor." Period. AND it is reasonable to conclude, given the weight of biblical text and just plain common sense, that it's not about picking on the rich and powerful simply because they're rich and powerful.
Rather, it's that God's Beloved Community - the Realm of God - BEGINS with this preferential for the poor NOT to mean that God loves the poor more than the rich. It's just that IF we're seeking justice and God's way as expressed in the teachings of Jesus and the Bible and just in terms of plain common sense, beginning with looking out for the poor and marginalized - the ones most likely to be harmed and oppressed by systems set up by the rich and powerful and privileged - is a rational place to start. IF the most at risk are being looked out for, IF their interests are being taken to heart as a first step, THEN when and as they are given the option of concern, the world will also be better for the rest of us, INCLUDING the wealthy and powerful.
I applaud you for checking into Patheos. I hope you understand what you're citing. If so, good on you. You're starting to get it. Perhaps it's just your partisanship has blinded you, making you unable to understand that I'm not saying God hates the Rich; I'm not saying that the poor are "angels;" I'm not saying that God loves this group (the poor) but not that group (the rich)...
I'm not saying any of that. I'm recognizing that, in the Bible, there is (what many progressive Catholics and others call) a preferential option for the poor. God expresses clearly and without end a deep and specific concern for the literally poor and marginalized. And the reasonable conclusion one might reach given this objectively demonstrable reality is that God loves us all BUT begins by looking out for those most at-risk. AS a counterweight to the privilege and prestige afforded the wealthy and powerful.
Well-done!
Are you still agreeing with Patheos and me, now that you realize that this is just about precisely what I've been saying all along?!
"1. I applaud you for reading the more progress Patheos.com."
Gee, thanks. But the piece was presented in more than one place. As I decided to use the article, I simply picked the first one which appeared as I scrolled back to the top of the screen. I don't know the other site, nor what their political leanings might be. I only know the piece itself supported my position, so I linked to it.
"2. This is PRECISELY (or at least mostly) what I've been saying, Marshal."
Actually not. Your position is the constant insistence that Christ came to bring Good News to the poor specifically. That's not accurate unless one concedes it was not the materially poor referenced. You suppose every mention of the word "poor" refers to only one thing. It does not. But as such, you suppose that means greater emphasis by God on the materially poor over anyone NOT materially poor. It does not.
"3. Indeed, while the Bible does not clarify overtly WHY God literally and repeatedly (2000+ times in the Bible)..."
But does He really? Or are many of the instances where "the poor" or "the hungry" or in your terminology "the marginalized" are mentioned, it means another example of concern for any of them? What's more, could you even provide 200 of those examples, or are you simply parroting what someone else said and assuming there are truly that many times God "came to the aid" of any of those people. I doubt it strongly.
"The rich and powerful DO have an inordinate advantage and privilege over and against the poor and marginalized."
This is also a meaningless statement, as it doesn't mean the rich and powerful are acting in a manner detrimental to or against "the poor and marginalized". And when God/Jesus/an Apostle speaks of such things, they're referencing specific rich people who are acting badly toward others, not all of them. At the same time, they're speaking of people who have been directly victimized by those bad actors, not all "poor and marginalized" people.
"AND the poor and marginalized are likewise disproportionately disadvantaged and at risk of abuse and mistreatment by the rich and powerful AND the policies and social customs they put in place."
This is a crass generalization. It's true in some cases and not true at all in others. More importantly, in those cases where it's true, it's a particularly silly thing to say since there's always a disproportionate imbalance regarding the amount of rich and powerful people to everyone else. Thus, if the rich and powerful were bad actors enacting policies and customs favorable to themselves, of course everyone else is disadvantaged to a "disproportionate" degree. It's basic math.
"4. So, Patheos and I agree that there is, in the Biblical witness, a clear and inescapable preferential "option for the poor." Period. AND it is reasonable to conclude, given the weight of biblical text and just plain common sense, that it's not about picking on the rich and powerful simply because they're rich and powerful."
First...once again, Patheos merely printed the piece. They didn't write it. Printing it doesn't mean they agree with it or even understand it.
Secondly...agreeing there appears a preferential option for the poor doesn't mean there is one.
Third...your constant mention of the poor contrasted with your mentions of the wealthy are clearly attacks on the latter and implies preference for the former as if they're more worthy of God's attention only because they're poor.
"Rather, it's that God's Beloved Community - the Realm of God - BEGINS with this preferential for the poor NOT to mean that God loves the poor more than the rich. It's just that IF we're seeking justice and God's way as expressed in the teachings of Jesus and the Bible and just in terms of plain common sense, beginning with looking out for the poor and marginalized - the ones most likely to be harmed and oppressed by systems set up by the rich and powerful and privileged - is a rational place to start."
Word salad. You never speak well of the wealthy despite my many examples of how the wealthy are doing their part to a degree you could never match by your rejection of wealth.
No "poor and marginalized" are harmed and oppressed by any system in this country, set up by people of greater means than they. That's crap...marxist crap.
Charity for Christians is a given. While a debate about how much one should give is not without merit, to pretend one is somehow a better example of it by speaking to it constantly is boring. The point is that despite concern for the poor expressed in Scripture, it is not the reason Christ came. Period. It may be a manifestation of one's conviction in the faith, it is not why He came.
"Are you still agreeing with Patheos and me, now that you realize that this is just about precisely what I've been saying all along?!"
In all the years you've been puking about the poor and marginalized, you've never once made any comment or statement comparable to that which you're now saying I'm in agreement. It would be far more honest and a demonstration of actual integrity to simply concede that my position is what YOU'RE now demonstrating some agreement.
But you won't. Conceding you've been bested yet again is not how you roll. But it seems you might for once be truly "getting it" for a change, though time will tell if that's the case.
Nowhere do the Gospels of the christian New Testament indicate any concern by Jesus for the plight of Roman-occupied Israel. He does express concern for widows, orphans, emphatically for the poor and destitute. And the imprisoned - many of them, undoubtedly, by the occupying power.
The Gospels do not indicate that Jesus raised an army. Rather, he is shown to recruit a couple of revolutionaries among his closest disciples and teaches them to abjure violence. And he tells Peter to put his sword down when Roman soldiers come for him.
Just facts.
Marshal and Craig and the other brutalizing thugs are on the opposite side of the fence. Which is their own testimony to their brutalizing proclivities.
___
This, of course, does not disincline us, as Americans - from having a foreign policy that bears out our responsibilities as citizens of a nation with power and a mixed moral history to both of which we should be accountable.
But this is our secular identity in the world platformed, for those of us professing any faith, ON our faith and dependent on our god given capacity to reason for ourselves. Our citizenship is corrupt if we are driven by a brutalizing ideology to build it on some perverse American Christianist thuggery.
We have a role to play in the middle east that can be consistently pushing and persuading the interests of peace and human rights. Not least because we ourselves should keep awake to the lessons we learned about ourselves: oppressing and incarcerating human persons because we despise them… is ugly and consequential to our souls and our children’s souls. And criminal.
Marshal has no faith based answer that gives him license to refute Jesus’ own words as noted above. Though Marshal wants to deny Jesus’ emphasis and world view, he has to do so only in duplicitous and underhanded fashion that keep him from being daily conscious of the gospel message in its fullness.
The apparatus he uses to unconsciously form his debate with Christ himself is the ideology of that good old time colonizing and brutalizing religion that we all inherited.
The bare simplicity of the quotes above, Dan, have kept him from coming back in his usual determinations to lie about the Christian community and our mission as the gospels and the book of Acts has shaped the Church: the poor, the hungry, the imprisoned, the children, the foreigner, and, as Peter learns in Acts something he didn’t learn from Jesus… those despised by the Jewish and the first Christian community together. The Spirit added a whole universal group uninvited by Jesus himself. Why? Because God keeps showing us that nothing about the creation of human beings is unclean, and none of us should remain unloved.
Except, as Paul says in Galatians, those who brutalize others with unjust laws and burdens.
feo cannot help projecting his hate fantasies upon those with a more accurate understanding of Christianity, and a totally better grasp of American foreign policy and federal obligations on behalf of the American people.
-MA
Post a Comment